Cool! What did your testing rig look like?
I suppose the real question is what does the latency/loss profile of the average Tor (bridge) user look like?
On 1/10/20 8:18 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:58:36 -0500 Matt Corallo tor-lists@mattcorallo.com wrote:
BBA should handle random packet loss much better than, eg, Cubic.
Do you mean BBR? https://github.com/google/bbr
In my experience it does work very well on Tor relays, and also on servers in general (keeping in mind that these TCP congestion control algorithms only affect upload, so matter most on hosts which do a lot of uploading, or as in case of Tor both upload and download).
The next best in my tests was Illinois: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP-Illinois I've been using it for a long time before BBR got included in the Linux kernel. Today, in some cases BBR is better, in other Illionis can be. The latter ramps up a bit slower on new connections, but appears to be able to achieve higher speeds after that.
These two are head and shoulders better than all other options available in the Linux kernel, including the default one (Cubic). And yes, perhaps indeed this is an area of Tor relay performance tuning that doesn't get enough of the attention that it deserves.